THE UNITY OF THE BOOK
OF GENESIS
BY
WILLIAM HENRY GREEN, D.D., LL.D.
PROFESSOR
OF ORIENTAL AND OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE IN
THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1895
COPYRIGHT, 1895, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
[Digitally prepared by Dr. Ted Hildebrandt
TROW DIRECTORY
PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY
PREFACE
ALL tradition, from whatever source it is
derived,
whether inspired
or uninspired, unanimously affirms that
the first
five books of the Bible were written by one man
and that man
was Moses. There is no counter-testimony
in any
quarter. From the predominant character
of their
contents
these books are commonly called the Law.
All
the statutes
contained in them are expressly declared to
have been
written by Moses or to have been given by the
LORD to
Moses. And if the entire law is his, the
history,
which is
plainly preparatory for, or subsidiary to, the
law, must be
his likewise.
The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch
has, how-
ever, been
challenged in modern times in the name of
the higher
criticism on two distinct and independent
grounds. One is that of the document hypothesis in its
various
forms and modifications, which occupies itself
with the
narrative portion of the Pentateuch, and on
the ground
of literary criteria claims that this is not the
product of
anyone writer, but that it has been compiled
from
different documents, which are clearly distinguish-
able in
diction, style, conception, plan, and design, and
which belong
to widely separated ages. The other is
that of the
development hypothesis, which has attached
itself to
the preceding, but deals characteristically with a
different portion
of the Pentateuch and employs a differ-
ent style of
argument. Its field of operation is the
laws,
which it
claims were not and could not have been given by
Moses, nor
at anyone period in the history of
vi PREFACE
It professes
to trace the growth of this legislation from
simple and
primitive forms to those which are more
complex and
which imply a later and more developed
civilization. And it confidently affirms that these laws
could not
have been committed to writing in their pres-
ent form for
many centuries after the age of Moses.
These hypotheses are discussed in a
general way in my
"Higher
Criticism of the Pentateuch," where the fallacy
and
inconclusiveness of the reasoning by which they are
defended and
the falsity of the conclusions deduced from
them are
exposed. In order to a complete
refutation of
these
hypotheses it is necessary to show still further by
a detailed
examination their inapplicability to, and in-
compatibility
with, the phenomena of the Pentateuch,
and that, so
far from solving the question of its origin,
they are
destitute of any real basis; they find no support
in the
Pentateuch itself, but are simply the creations of
learned
ingenuity and a lively imagination.
The present treatise occupies itself
exclusively with
the document
hypothesis, and aims to prove that the
book of
Genesis is not a compilation from different docu-
ments, but
is the continuous work of a single writer.
The
demonstration that this hypothesis has no foothold
in Genesis
effectually overturns it for the rest of the
Pentateuch,
or, if the critics please, the Hexateuch.
It
took its
rise in Genesis; the most plausible arguments
in its favor
are drawn from that book; and the verdict
rendered by
that book substantially settles the case for
those that
follow. It is on the basis of the
assumption
that it is
firmly established in Genesis that it is carried
through the
Hexateuch. If that assumption is proved
to be false,
the hypothesis collapses entirely.
What is here proposed is a critical study of Genesis
from
beginning to end, chapter by chapter and section
by
section. The history of critical opinion
is given in
PREFACE
vii
full in the
more important passages, and is throughout
traced
sufficiently to place before the reader the various
views that
have been entertained, together with the
grounds
adduced on their behalf. Pains have been
taken
to carefully
collate and frankly state whatever has been
urged in
defence of the hypothesis by its ablest and
most eminent
advocates on each successive passage; and
this is then
subjected to a thorough and candid exami-
nation. The reader will thus be put in possession of
the
reasons for
and against it to the best of the writer's abil-
ity, and can
form his own conclusion. The writer,
while
aiming at
entire fairness in presenting both sides of the
argument,
does not conceal his own assured conviction
of the
overwhelming preponderance in favor of the faith
of ages and
against the divisive hypothesis of modern
times.
As the alleged criteria of the different
documents are
most fully
and clearly stated by Dr. Dillmann, his pres-
entation of
them is followed throughout the book, unless
where some
other authority is expressly mentioned.
To avoid constant circumlocution P, J, E,
and D are
frequently
spoken of as though they were the real en-
tities that
the critics declare them to be, and passages
are said to
belong to one or the other because critics so
affirm. Such language adopted for brevity must not be
understood
as an admission that the documents so called
ever
existed.
In replying to the objections of Bishop
Colenso in
1863 the
author ventured the suggestion that he might
at some
future time prepare a work on the criticism of
the
Pentateuch. Since that time the
positions then
taken by
leading critics have been abandoned by them-
selves, and
their whole conception of the origin and con-
stitution of
the Pentateuch has been revolutionized.
The complex character of the Pentateuchal
question
viii PREFACE
and the
tedious minuteness required in its thorough ex-
amination
doubtless supply the reason why so many
critics are
content with repeating or building upon the
conclusions
of their predecessors without investigating
for
themselves the soundness of the basis on which these
conclusions
rest. The author frankly confesses for
him-
self that,
while he felt at every point the weakness and
unsatisfactory
character of the arguments of the divisive
critics, he
was long deterred by the complexity of the
task from
undertaking to prepare such a treatise as the
nature of
the case required. He might have
continued
still to
shrink from it but for the proposal, in 1888,
by his
friend Dr. W. R. Harper, of an amicable dis-
cussion of
the subject in the columns of the Hebraica.
The kindly
proposal was accepted, though with some
hesitation
lest the cause whose defence was thus under-
taken might
suffer from unskilful advocacy. It
seemed,
however, to
involve less responsibility and to be a less
onerous
undertaking to engage in such a discussion,
piecemeal,
in the columns of a quarterly journal, at
the
solicitation of a friend, than to set myself to the
preparation
of a work on the entire subject of my own
motion. The discussion thus begun was continued at
intervals,
step by step, through the whole of the narrative
portion of
the Pentateuch. Though convinced at the
outset of
the unsoundness in the main of the arguments
urged on
behalf of the critical partition of the Penta-
teuch by its
principal defenders, I did not know but
there might
be some fire where there was so much
smoke, and
some possible foundation for the positive
assertions
in which the critics are so prone to indulge.
The
discussion was accordingly begun with no absolute
prepossession
on my part for or against the existence of
Pentateuchal
documents. One thing was clear to my
mind from
the beginning, that the Pentateuch as inspired
PREFACE ix
of God was a
true and trustworthy record; everything
else was
left to be determined by the evidence which it
should
supply. As the discussion proceeded I
found my-
self unable
to discover sufficient reason anywhere for the
assumption
that the Pentateuch was a compilation from
pre-existing
documents; and by the time that my task
was
completed I had settled down in the assured belief
that the
so-called documents were a chimera, and that
the
much-vaunted discovery of Astruc was no discovery
at all, but
an ignis fatuus which has misled critics ever
since into a
long and weary and fruitless search through
fog and
mire, that might better be abandoned for a
forward
march on terra firma.
The discussion in the Hebraica
prepared the way for
the volume
now offered to the public, in which the
attempt is
made to treat the question with more thor-
oughness
than was possible in the limitations necessarily
imposed in a
crowded quarterly. The ground there
traversed
has been carefully re-examined and explored
at afresh in
the light shed upon it by the ablest minds on
either side
of the controversy. The prominence ac-
corded to
German scholars is due to the fact that the
have been
the chief laborers in the field. The
various
partition
hypotheses, after Astruc's conjecture, as he
himself
termed it, had pointed out the way, have been
originated
and elaborated by German scholars. And if
they have
failed to put them upon a solid basis, it is but
from no lack
of learning, ingenuity, or perseverance, but
much from
the inherent weakness of the cause.
It is hoped that this volume may prove a
serviceable
text-book
for the study of criticism; that it may meet
the wants of
theological students and ministers who de-
sire to
acquaint themselves thoroughly with a subject of
such
prominence and importance; and that it may like-
wise prove
helpful to intelligent laymen who, omitting
x PREFACE
the
discussion of Hebrew words that are necessarily in-
troduced,
may be led by it to a better understanding of
the book of
Genesis in its connection and the mutual
relation of
its several parts, and be helped in the solu-
tion of
difficulties and the removal of objections.
It
stands on
the common ground, dear alike to all who re-
gard the
Pentateuch as the word of God through Moses,
whether Jew
or Christian, Catholic or Protestant, clergy-
man or
layman. If by the divine blessing it
shall be
made to
contribute in any measure to the elucidation or
defence of
this part of Holy Scripture, or to the confir-
mation of the
faith of any, or to the relief of such as
may have
been perplexed or troubled by anxious doubts
or
misgivings, the author will be profoundly grateful to
Him to whom
all praise is due.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
THE BOOK OF
GENESIS, 1
The creation of the heavens and the
earth (Gen. i. 1-ii. 3),
words indicative of P, 4.
I
THE
GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH (CH. II. 4-IV.) 7
Primitive state and fall of man (ch. ii.
4-iii. 24), 7; false critical
methods, 7; no duplicate account of the
creation,
9; no discrepancies, 20; words and phrases
indicative of J,
29 ; mutual relation of this and the
preceding section, 33.
Cain and Abel--Cain's descendants (ch. iv.),
36; marks of J, 39.
II
THE
GENERATIONS OF ADAM (CH. V. 1- VI. 8), 42
Adam to Noah (ch. v.), 42; the Cainite
and Sethite gen-
ealogies, 43; duplicate statements, 47;
primeval chronology,
49; marks of P, 50. The Sons of God and the Daughters of
Men (ch. vi. 1-8), 51; marks of J, 61.
III
THE
GENERATIONS OF NOAR (CH. VI. 9-IX. 29), 65
The flood (ch. vi. 9-ix. 17), 65; the
critical partition of
ch. vi. 5-ix. 17, 66; J not continuous, 71;
P not contin-
uous, 78; no superfluous repetitions, 83 ;
the divine names,
88; no discrepancies, 90; difference of
diction, 94; marks
of P, 96; marks of J, 116; numerical
correspondence, 121;
the Assyrian flood tablets? 122, Noah after the flood (ch.
ix. 18-29), 127.
xii CONTNETS
IV
PAGE
THE
GENERATIONS 0F THE SONS 0F NOAH. (CH. X. l-XI. 9), 131
Origin of
nations (ch. x.), 131 ; marks of P, 141 ; marks
of J, 143.
V
THE
GENERATIONS 0F SHEM (CH. XI. 10-26), 146
Shem to Abram (ch. xi. 10-26), 146.
VI
THE
GENERATIONS OF TERAH (Cx. XI. 27-XXV. 11), 148
Preliminary remarks, 148; the divine
names, 151; the crit-
ical partition, 154; no discrepancies,
161. The family of
Terah (ch. xi. 27-32), 168. The call of Abram and his jour-
neys (ch.
xii.), 171; critical partition of vs. 1-9, 172; marks
of P, 175;
marks of J, 181. Abram in
182; marks
of J, 185. Separation from
grounds of
partition, 186; marks of P, 192; marks of J, 193.
Abram's
rescue of
nant of
Jehovah (ch. xv.), 202. Birth of Ishmael
(ch. xvi.),
208; marks of
P, 213; marks of J, 215. Covenant sealed